There already is a basic vetting process; I’d mostly welcome fairly gradual improvements to lower downside risk. (I think my initial comment sounded more like the bar should be fairly high, similar to that of, e.g., the LTFF. This is not what I intended to say; I think it should still be considerably lower.)
I think even just explicitly saying something like “we welcome criticism of high-status people or institutions” would go a long way for both shaping people’s perception of the vetting process and shaping the vetters’ approach.
That said, your arguments did update me in the direction “small changes to the vetting process seem better than large changes.”
There already is a basic vetting process; I’d mostly welcome fairly gradual improvements to lower downside risk. (I think my initial comment sounded more like the bar should be fairly high, similar to that of, e.g., the LTFF. This is not what I intended to say; I think it should still be considerably lower.)
I think even just explicitly saying something like “we welcome criticism of high-status people or institutions” would go a long way for both shaping people’s perception of the vetting process and shaping the vetters’ approach.
That said, your arguments did update me in the direction “small changes to the vetting process seem better than large changes.”